From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: will@kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org,
dianders@chromium.org, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] arm64: cpufeature: Relax checks for AArch32 support at EL[0-2]
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:37:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d1f538ec-e956-c136-d0f8-54e7351a28a9@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200415105843.GE12621@willie-the-truck>
On 04/15/2020 11:58 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:50:58AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 04/14/2020 10:31 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> We don't need to be quite as strict about mismatched AArch32 support,
>>> which is good because the friendly hardware folks have been busy
>>> mismatching this to their hearts' content.
>>>
>>> * We don't care about EL2 or EL3 (there are silly comments concerning
>>> the latter, so remove those)
>>>
>>> * EL1 support is gated by the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 capability and handled
>>> gracefully when a mismatch occurs
>>>
>>> * EL1 support is gated by the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0 capability and handled
>>
>> s/EL1/EL0
>>
>>> gracefully when a mismatch occurs
>>>
>>> Relax the AArch32 checks to FTR_NONSTRICT.
>>
>> Agreed. We should do something similar for the features exposed by the
>> ELF_HWCAP, of course in a separate series.
>
> Hmm, I didn't think we needed to touch the HWCAPs, as they're derived from
> the sanitised feature register values. What am I missing?
sorry, that was cryptic. I was suggesting to relax the ftr fields to
NONSTRICT for the fields covered by ELF HWCAPs (and other CPU hwcaps).
Suzuki
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: will@kernel.org
Cc: saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
maz@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
dianders@chromium.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
kernel-team@android.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] arm64: cpufeature: Relax checks for AArch32 support at EL[0-2]
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:37:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d1f538ec-e956-c136-d0f8-54e7351a28a9@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200415105843.GE12621@willie-the-truck>
On 04/15/2020 11:58 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:50:58AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 04/14/2020 10:31 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> We don't need to be quite as strict about mismatched AArch32 support,
>>> which is good because the friendly hardware folks have been busy
>>> mismatching this to their hearts' content.
>>>
>>> * We don't care about EL2 or EL3 (there are silly comments concerning
>>> the latter, so remove those)
>>>
>>> * EL1 support is gated by the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 capability and handled
>>> gracefully when a mismatch occurs
>>>
>>> * EL1 support is gated by the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0 capability and handled
>>
>> s/EL1/EL0
>>
>>> gracefully when a mismatch occurs
>>>
>>> Relax the AArch32 checks to FTR_NONSTRICT.
>>
>> Agreed. We should do something similar for the features exposed by the
>> ELF_HWCAP, of course in a separate series.
>
> Hmm, I didn't think we needed to touch the HWCAPs, as they're derived from
> the sanitised feature register values. What am I missing?
sorry, that was cryptic. I was suggesting to relax the ftr fields to
NONSTRICT for the fields covered by ELF HWCAPs (and other CPU hwcaps).
Suzuki
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: will@kernel.org
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org,
anshuman.khandual@arm.com, maz@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dianders@chromium.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, kernel-team@android.com,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] arm64: cpufeature: Relax checks for AArch32 support at EL[0-2]
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 12:37:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d1f538ec-e956-c136-d0f8-54e7351a28a9@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200415105843.GE12621@willie-the-truck>
On 04/15/2020 11:58 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:50:58AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 04/14/2020 10:31 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> We don't need to be quite as strict about mismatched AArch32 support,
>>> which is good because the friendly hardware folks have been busy
>>> mismatching this to their hearts' content.
>>>
>>> * We don't care about EL2 or EL3 (there are silly comments concerning
>>> the latter, so remove those)
>>>
>>> * EL1 support is gated by the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 capability and handled
>>> gracefully when a mismatch occurs
>>>
>>> * EL1 support is gated by the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0 capability and handled
>>
>> s/EL1/EL0
>>
>>> gracefully when a mismatch occurs
>>>
>>> Relax the AArch32 checks to FTR_NONSTRICT.
>>
>> Agreed. We should do something similar for the features exposed by the
>> ELF_HWCAP, of course in a separate series.
>
> Hmm, I didn't think we needed to touch the HWCAPs, as they're derived from
> the sanitised feature register values. What am I missing?
sorry, that was cryptic. I was suggesting to relax the ftr fields to
NONSTRICT for the fields covered by ELF HWCAPs (and other CPU hwcaps).
Suzuki
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-15 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-14 21:31 [PATCH 0/8] Relax sanity checking for mismatched AArch32 EL1 Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 1/8] arm64: cpufeature: Relax check for IESB support Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:02 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:02 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:02 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 2/8] arm64: cpufeature: Spell out register fields for ID_ISAR4 and ID_PFR1 Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:09 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:09 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:09 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 3/8] arm64: cpufeature: Add CPU capability for AArch32 EL1 support Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 8:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-15 8:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-15 8:55 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-15 17:00 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 17:00 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 17:00 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:13 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:13 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:13 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:14 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:14 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:14 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 13:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 13:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 13:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 13:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-15 13:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-15 13:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-17 9:44 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-17 9:44 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-17 9:44 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 4/8] arm64: cpufeature: Remove redundant call to id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0() Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:25 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:25 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:25 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 5/8] arm64: cpufeature: Factor out checking of AArch32 features Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:36 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:36 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:36 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 6/8] arm64: cpufeature: Relax AArch32 system checks if EL1 is 64-bit only Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:43 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:43 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:43 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 7/8] arm64: cpufeature: Relax checks for AArch32 support at EL[0-2] Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:50 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:50 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:50 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 10:58 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:58 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 10:58 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 11:37 ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2020-04-15 11:37 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 11:37 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-15 12:29 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 12:29 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-15 12:29 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-17 9:37 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-17 9:37 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-17 9:37 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-14 21:31 ` [PATCH 8/8] arm64: cpufeature: Add an overview comment for the cpufeature framework Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-14 21:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-16 11:58 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-16 11:58 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-16 11:58 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-16 14:59 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-16 14:59 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-16 14:59 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-04-16 15:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-16 15:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-16 15:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-16 18:12 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-16 18:12 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-16 18:12 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-16 8:39 ` [PATCH 0/8] Relax sanity checking for mismatched AArch32 EL1 Sai Prakash Ranjan
2020-04-16 8:39 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2020-04-16 8:39 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2020-04-16 10:26 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2020-04-16 10:26 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
2020-04-16 10:26 ` Sai Prakash Ranjan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d1f538ec-e956-c136-d0f8-54e7351a28a9@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.